Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Councilmember Look asked about the time frame for this project. <br /> <br />Public Works Director Olson stated that he expects the contract documents to be wrapped up in <br />the next week or so and would like to start as early as late next week because it is low water time <br />at the river. <br /> <br />Councilmember Look asked about the urgency to move forward. <br /> <br />PublicW orks Director Olson stated that it needs to be done in periods of low water. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dehen stated that this outlet, as he understands it, is not going to be regularly <br />draining anything and is purely for 1 DO-year flood protection. <br /> <br />Public Works Director Olson stated that this is correct. He stated that URS initially provided the <br />storm water model and today it will only act as 1 DO-year relief. He stated that this means it <br />would drain into the Mississippi when there would be a 4 inch storm or higher. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig asked what the City loses with an Easement Agreement versus a Joint <br />Powers Agreement. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich stated that he does not think it changes anything, and noted that both <br />documents state virtually the same thing and is a matter of semantics. He noted that the motion <br />should note that this is an Easement Agreement, not a Joint Powers Agreement to use County <br />Park property and trail easement and not to adopt the resolution on page 216. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Elvig, seconded by Councilmember Strommen, to approve the <br />Easement Agreement to use the County Park property and trail easement for the installation of <br />the County Storm Sewer Outlet and Trail. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Elvig, Strommen, Dehen, Look, <br />and Olson. Voting No: None. Absent: Councilmember Jeffrey. <br /> <br />Case #9: <br /> <br />Adopt Ordinance to Amend Chapter 5.20 (Enforcement) of City Code <br /> <br />Community Development Director Miller stated that staff has been refIning section 5.20 of the <br />City Code to clarify some areas and help address repeat offenders. She reviewed some of the <br />suggested changes to the City Code~ <br /> <br />Councilmember Look asked what a non-abatable offense is. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Miller stated that the non-abatable offense is the escalating <br />fIne, which was adopted when the fees and fmes were adopted at a past meeting. She stated that <br />non-abatable offenses are barking dogs or property maintenance issues, such as an incomplete <br />building, for example. <br /> <br />City Council! December 9, 2008 <br />Page 13 of 17 <br /> <br />P45 <br />